Simple as fear. It is not only a wonderful experience it is also very terrifying. Psychedelics, if that is even what it is, have been ostracized by society, for whatever reason, politics, philosophy, culture, people making OSs due to their inspiration since the 60s. DMT was known about back then, but not widely known about, back then it was super rare. Getting the main ingredients would have been a pain and required going to South America.

Now that the ingredients are not difficult to get, thanks to the digital information system, more and more people are seeing what this thing is. And many of them that take enough come back with stories right out of a Phillip K Dick novel, or information that seems so New Agey, frequencies, cymatics, fractals, entities, etc, it is too weird or difficult for people to even want to look at this as something more than a really crazy drug and look into what it is doing to the brain. This has been done to small extents in providing details into which serotonin receptors DMT is affecting. What is clear is that one would have to take HUGE amounts of mushrooms to get to what this state is, if it is even possible. This takes a person there in two seconds then ten minutes, you are back. How is it possible?

By all means, I would LOVE for this to be studied by science ; then the Singularity would be right around the corner, mann...JK.

That's awesome. In several million years they may become exclusively water dwellers, similarly to how dolphins and whales evolved from pig-like and cow-like creatures.

Except the sea-sloths will have huge claws at the ends of their fins.

[edit]
Actually, it seems there were species of sea-sloths evolving through history, with their snout growing longer with a raised breathing hole. I guess evolution proved them too slow to survive in the water, as they all went extinct and left the ground-based species to carry on their good name.

See also: The Giant Swimming Sloths of South America

Jackie Chan is just an athlete/actor, so it can't be expected that he think scientifically rather than "claim that whatever's good for my side is true."

In international measurements, most of the world is pretty corrupt except for:
1. Western European descended nations, including the US.
2. Japan, whom China hates.
3. A few countries in South America.

There was a study awhile ago done that show'd the more aid given to a country, the greater the increase of crimes against humanity. Such as torture and massacres and such, like in Central and South America.

Native to the rain forest regions of northern South America.
See They are not over logging the Rain Forest. The People there are just really trying to kill these things.

Wait a sec. You mean these are on a land mass connected to the one I live on??
Screw Green Peace. I'm starting a new group. Napalm South American Rain Forest.

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:

"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom

>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY

Your point is unclear. What are we supposed to be upset about?

You believe that the reason the USA incinerates (per @BoneRemake) so many people is because of private prisons lobbying for more things to be made criminal?

Private prisons may merit a closer look, but keep in mind bad laws, badly-written laws and State-created criminals existed long before private prisons.

And we don't lock up people (or worse) for criticizing the government like China.


>> ^raverman:

@deathcow & @criticalthud : Profit engine has a lot to do with it. Private entities are like virii. They can ONLY encourage things which increase growth / profit. It's a conflict of interest to reduce crime. Companies like Serco scare the crap out of me - cos most people don't know they even exist.
http://videosift.com/video/The-Biggest-Company-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of
I'm not sure the scale argument holds up. It's just comforting to think America is big like Texas. The application of law across a 100M to 300M shouldn't someones attitude or morality when making a decision. If the pop density per Sq Mile was the issue the US has plenty of open space, and the cities are not that more populated than any other. Nor is the poorest American poorer.
I don't think it's even the volume of drugs coming over from central/south america... although the zealous enforcement of imprisonment probably doesnt help. Drugs may not be the gateway to crime - but being imprisoned certainly seems to be.
I'd side with the 'extreme liberty' argument.

@deathcow & @criticalthud : Profit engine has a lot to do with it. Private entities are like virii. They can ONLY encourage things which increase growth / profit. It's a conflict of interest to reduce crime. Companies like Serco scare the crap out of me - cos most people don't know they even exist.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Biggest-Company-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of

I'm not sure the scale argument holds up. It's just comforting to think America is big like Texas. The application of law across a 100M to 300M shouldn't someones attitude or morality when making a decision. If the pop density per Sq Mile was the issue the US has plenty of open space, and the cities are not that more populated than any other. Nor is the poorest American poorer.

I don't think it's even the volume of drugs coming over from central/south america... although the zealous enforcement of imprisonment probably doesnt help. Drugs may not be the gateway to crime - but being imprisoned certainly seems to be.

I'd side with the 'extreme liberty' argument.

So many factory workers in Asia, South America, and even parts of the US that make consumer products are subject to these conditions. This focus on Apple obscures that fact that most products people buy were made under conditions some would consider harsh.

As bad as the folks in Foxconn have it-and that is a hard life- if they stayed home in western China, they would have a much worse life on the countryside. There are literally lines of people waiting to take their jobs and benefits.

>> ^mxxcon:

video was filmed by russians, but he's not. at 0:45 you can see his poster. I can't read it but it seems like Spanish.
And based on his dreadlocks and dark skin complexion, I'm thinking Caribbean or South America?
His t-shirt also has some website but can't read it because of his dreadlocks.


I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this earlier, but I believe it's Santiago, Chile.

video was filmed by russians, but he's not. at 0:45 you can see his poster. I can't read it but it seems like Spanish.
And based on his dreadlocks and dark skin complexion, I'm thinking Caribbean or South America?
His t-shirt also has some website but can't read it because of his dreadlocks.

>> ^aaronfr:

Perhaps more informative would have been to show published science articles per capita or per GDP. Or at least have the first map as a representation of population or GDP so that we could see where we really expect there to be pockets of science research. Per capita would make Japan, Germany, and France that much more impressive. Per GDP would explain Africa and South America (except Brazil). Either way, the point would be enhanced not detracted from.


I think it'd harm japan if done per capita. It'd help britain and france a lot. It'd murder china.

Per GDP is tough. I think it favours small and stable landmasses again. Britain is slipping in GDP but scientifically fairly strong. Places like saudi arabia aren't necessarily known for their science but they're definitely known for wealth. A good few places might have skewed GDP because of corrupt bonus culture balancing people living in poverty.

Perhaps more informative would have been to show published science articles per capita or per GDP. Or at least have the first map as a representation of population or GDP so that we could see where we really expect there to be pockets of science research. Per capita would make Japan, Germany, and France that much more impressive. Per GDP would explain Africa and South America (except Brazil). Either way, the point would be enhanced not detracted from.